The obvious solution is: JUST SUCK ON IT, GiveWell.

If this comment gets deleted it’s just because the moderators can’t deal with the transparency of it.

If GiveWell was only concerned with maximizing the impact of their own funds (as most foundations are) I would suggest narrowing their focus. But the part of the GiveWell experiment I find most interesting is the way it can help inform other donors. If they have a narrow focus, they will only be a resource to donors with that same narrow interest. If they have a broad focus, they will be able to attract multiple donors and more people can learn something from the process.

To employ an inadequate analogy from the political rather than financial sector: it’s the equivalent of helping distinguish between political parties in the general election rather than focusing on the differences between candidates in the primaries. It’s not that parsing the details of the primary candidates’ positions isn’t important, it’s that the differences tend to pale in comparison to those between the parties. That’s why in most cases (perhaps the current presidential primaries excepted…), the first is usually the hobby of small number of engaged individuals, while the latter is of much more widespread concern.

Andrea: Yes, they do, and you are a person so you probably do it too nya nya

Michael: OK then, if you don’t believe in trying to do better than the behavioral patterns that humans default to then suit yourself. However, since the point of this blog and this organization is to try to do better in a particular way we aren’t going to care much what you say about the matter if you don’t think that trying to do better is a good idea.

Think how little information children have about any given career when they commit years of their life to a career track pointing in that direction, or for the most elementary example think of the supposed conviction that most people have in whatever religion they are born into. Great effort is expended in a direction determined by a non-deliberative decision despite great disagreement between agents. For a classic experiment on this, see the Robber’s Cave experiment http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html

As a strong general rule, a person is acting unwisely and irrationally if they invest great prolonged effort in any task without great deliberation although others in approximately their circumstances dedicate their efforts to a different task.

The original post, as well as several of the comments, suggest that the bird’s eye view is very important. I would agree. I think it’s more important to make the right decision between, say, African health and US K-12 education than to make the right decision WITHIN the chosen area (within reason - of course one doesn’t want to support a scam organization in any field, and one should make reasonable efforts to find a good organization).

In turn, this opens up the question of how should GiveWell’s research be focused. Is it better to choose 5 or so topics based more or less on gut feel, then find a few exemplars within each topic (which in turn, allows readers to compare the topics to an extent), or is it better to focus on the bird’s eye view in the first place? i.e. I’ve thought for a while that GiveWell should put more emphasis on high level charity issues - mapping the charitable landscape and the bird’s eye view. But I see merit in the approach that GiveWell has taken, as well.